tv Sanctuary Cities CSPAN May 19, 2017 9:05pm-11:19pm EDT
about debate and the pennsylvania abolition society, they put forth a vision of a new nation that imagined a racially inclusive republic. when the basic rights of enslaved africans were respected. >> at 8 o'clock on the presidency. history professor and author charles -- on letters exchanged between abraham lincoln and his friend joshua speed. >> for two men to talk about their everlasting love for each other. it was normal and encouraged. to be expressive about intimacy and connection and love. i think that is a way to see this relationship. as long as the boundary against sexuality was absolutely strictly maintained. >> for a complete american history schedule go to c-span.org. >> next, a look at sanctuary cities and immigration enforcement under the trump administration. speakers include immigration
officials, law enforcement and advocates representing undocumented immigrants living in the us. they discuss how recent executive orders signed by the president are affecting communities with a large immigrant population. and how cities are responding to the potential loss of federal funds. hosted by the american bar association, this is just over two hours. >> all right good morning everyone. welcome to this timely program titled sanctuary cities, legitimate law enforcement policy or rogue action. cosponsored by the section of civil rights and social justice and the commission on immigration of the american bar association. my name is karen, i am a special counsel here in the washington d.c. office. -- and for purposes of this program this morning i serve as special advisor to the commission on immigration. i am delighted to be our moderator for the program and i am especially honored to be
sharing the stage with this distinguished group of panelists. i have moderated a lot of programs for the american bar association before but i have learned so much preparing for this one because this is not a topic on which i work every day. so the materials that we have gotten and the preparation that i have been able to do with these folks has been really instructive for me.i'm very pleased to have the chance to offer this wide range of diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives to all of you this morning. in short, today's program is going to explore in depth the sanctuary city concept that has come so much into permanence in the national discourse since the recent executive orders on immigration enforcement priorities. as you will hear later in the program, the actuary is not a new concept. in the law or in practice but is really in the forefront of some of the discussions today. will be talking about the definitions of sanctuary
cities, the various ways the state and local jurisdictions can limit their cooperation with federal enforcement authorities. the consequences of those decisions for local jurisdictions and their immigrant population. the panelists will be talking about various policies. detainers, litigation around detainer issues and the very practical real daily questions of whether sanctuary city policies do or do not create safer, more prosperous communities. with apologies to all of the panelists, i'm going to give only very brief introductions to each of them and direct your attention to the full biographies that are in your materials. i will introduce them in the order in which we intend to proceed this morning. first to my immediate left michelle -- senior research and policy analyst for the american immigration counsel.
and in her role she focuses primarily on high skilled immigration and enforcement issues. to michelle's left -- the associate director of the national immigration project of the national lawyers guild. next to her, betsy cavendish, the general counsel to d.c. mayor muriel bowser and to betsy's immediate left, tom manger. tom is the chief of police for the montgomery county police department. and also interestingly, the president of the major cities chief association. we are looking for him to wear a couple of hats in this program also. to his left, chad -- from the department of justice. tom i'm sorry chad is counsel for the attorney general and will bring is the doj perspective. then to his left, tracy short. tracy is the principal legal advisor for ice, immigration
and customs enforcement within the department of homeland security. so he will be our second government speaker this morning. and at the, no pun intended, far left - [laughter] michael -- michael is the principal in the d.c. region of jackson lewis tc. michael himself is former general counsel of ice so i'm really looking forward to his opportunity to reflect coming from both the private practice side but also with the government ice enforcement experience to round out our discussion. [laughter] we probably messed up the seating order. if not the introduction order. so our plan is to have brief presentations from each of the speakers. with michelle starting us off with a history background and
basically framing of the issue. then each of the panelists will speak. then will have some time for a roundtable discussion that i will facilitate. so that people can speak among themselves response to some questions that we prepared. and we have a good amount of time for question and answers from the audience. i have a housekeeping manner which is that we have only one microphone. for the audience for q&a. so when it comes time, if you do have a question we would like you to indicate that you have a question. raise your hand or stand and wait for the microphone to come to you. and then identify yourself and your company or organization affiliation before you ask your question. reminders to everyone that this program is being broadcast and recorded. everyone bear that in mind when you make your comments or ask your questions.
i have just one thought to start us off on the panel. the people who helped organize this reminded me of a quote - from justice kennedy in the arizona litigation.the arizona versus united states litigation from 2012. it is not about sanctuary cities at all. it is a very good device to help set the stage for us in the discussion that we hope to have this morning. i'm going to kick it off with this. in talking about the relationship between state policing and federal immigration enforcement, justice kennedy wrote, the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nation's leading its responsibility to base the laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful and rational specific discourse. so we begin the panel with that goal in mind. to facilitate a dog will and rational discourse on the subject of where national
immigration authority interacts with state policing. with that i'm going to turn to michelle's opening presentation. >> thank you so much karen grisez. and thank you to the american bar association for inviting me to be part of this panel this morning. my job was to present an overview and basics so we can get the conversation started. as you all know over the past several decades states, counties and cities have adopted a variety of different policies that restrict the cooperation with federal authorities to enforce immigration law. and elected officials and law enforcement officials in many localities as we will hearsay have determined that this is in their community's best interest to limit their role in deportation for a variety of reasons.you will hear from the other panelists today but generally they believe that these policies allow them to determine best how they protect
and serve their own communities and it allows them to decide how to spend their own resources. they truly believe that these policies make their community safer. some people call these policies that limit or restrict cooperation sanctuary policies. we know that the administration believes that they are sanctuary policies and that they violate federal law. and they have threatened to withhold funding from these so-called sanctuary cities and have attempted to publicly shame them. with published reports of their alleged failure to protect the community. i strongly believe that same joy policy, contrary to what many believe sanctuary policies do not shelter unauthorized immigrants. immigrants are deported from sanctuaries jurisdictions every single day. they do not shield immigrants from prosecution, criminal activities. the police can enforce all criminal laws against immigrants who commit crimes. starting there, this morning i'm going to discuss first what
policies are included under this umbrella of sanctuary policies.health so-called sanctuary cities to cooperate with the federal government. how they are in compliance with federal law. and then i'm going to go over to the evidence that we have that these cities are safe and economically vibrant. first, what policies are considered under this umbrella of sanctuary policies?they take many forms. some examples include prohibiting 287 g agreements. these are agreements to which ice deputize his local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws. sanctuary policies can also be refusing to enter into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention. it could be restricting the police or other cities workers from asking about immigration status.from individuals that they encounter or served or arrest. sanctuary policies can be refusing to allow i.c.e. into the local jazz without a
warrant. it can mean restricting immigration enforcement and sensitive locations like hospitals and schools. and a same joy policy can also be restricting local police responses. restricting them from honoring all immigration detainers. i know that -- will talk a lot more about detainers but says this is the one that we hear about most frequently have to give a little background. for our purposes a detainer is a tool used by the department of homeland security and i.c.e. specifically when they identify potentially deportable people who are held in jails or prison. a detainer is a request by i.c.e. asking local law enforcement officials to hold that individual for a period of up to 48 hours longer than they would have usually held that person. after bell has been posted, active charges have been dropped or after the person has served their sentence. you hold them an additional amount of time so that i.c.e.
can a sympathy. the detainers are not judicial warrants and compliance with detainers is voluntary. i said that sanctuary policies or cities with sanctuary policies did cooperate with the federal government on immigration. they do this in a variety of ways. even in the sanctuary jurisdictions, officials send federal immigration agents the fingerprints of any person built into a jail or prison. including immigrants. they use those benefits and information to identify noncitizens for deportation. this is what we know as the secure communities program. sharing fingerprints. this is a mandatory program for all jurisdictions across the country.sanctuary cities can also cooperate in joint task forces and other joint operations with i.c.e. and dhs. operations should target gangs
and others. -- even in sanctuary cities, these jurisdictions may honor detainers from the federal government in circumstances. in many cases, these jurisdictions will honor detainers if the individual has been convicted of a crime rather than just charged with a crime. or they will honor the detainer of the individual has been charged with or convicted of a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor. one thing that we have heard often recently is that sanctuary cities are not in compliance with federal law. again, we will hear more about this from the other expert lawyers on the panel. specifically, some people do claim that the sanctuary policies violate -- this is a federal statute that prohibits state and local governments from enacting laws of policies
that limit communication about information regarding the immigration or citizenship status of individuals. so pursuant to section 1373 station localities may not prohibit or restrict sending or receiving or requesting information regarding the citizenship or immigration status.lawful or unlawful of any individual from federal immigration authorities. they may not prohibit or restrict maintaining information regarding an individual status. they may not prohibit or restrict exchanging information regarding individuals immigration status.but by plain language section 1373 only applies to sharing of information regarding an individual's citizenship and -- so not only does this limit the communication about citizenship or immigration status and do
not forbid maintenance of such information are not violations. moreover, section 1373 does not mandate that jurisdiction is complied with immigration detainers. it does not prohibit policies or laws that restrict compliance with detainers. and it does not require state or local enforcement to collect information on immigration status. it does not prevent jurisdictions from living the collection of that information. many would argue that these policies i described are not in violation of federal law. but finally, what i want to talk about is that we had concerns that the jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with i.c.e. are basically allowing criminals to run free. failing to deal with threats to public safety and national security. however there is evidence that the opposite is true. of course there is plenty of evidence that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than nativeborn americans. and many cities with large
immigrant communities are among the safest communities in the country. police officials will tell you and probably will tell you that it is easier for them to serve and protect their communities when there is trust between the police and the communities. and when all residents are willing to cooperate and report crimes. this is especially important right now. there is a lot of fear in communities. even in sanctuary jurisdictions immigrants are fearful. they are just been reported that in los angeles denver, el paso and other cities, the reporting of crimes including domestic abuse and sexual assault is down. in these cities with large immigrant populations. announces the beginning of the year. so if immigrants are not going to commit crimes, i'm sorry if immigrants do not report crimes that they witness or that they are victims of, then the perpetrators may not be arrested. and everyone in between his left peers of my house is being
roger miles is on fire and the only witnesses and unauthorized immigrants, i sure as heck want that person to call the fire department or call the police to protect me and protect my house regardless of their immigration status.on wednesday the attorney general of new york california rhode island washington oregon and the district of columbia release an excellent new report called setting the record straight on local involvement between federal civil immigration enforcement. that report i would recommend to all of you. it makes many of the same points and i made here today. from a law enforcement perspective, it tells many examples of immigrants have come forward and been very helpful in the arrest of criminals. also really explains in detail why these policies are good for the states that they represent. then another study is a 2017 report by a professor in san
diego. they found it's enjoy counties there are lower crime rates and higher economic indicators than in non-sanctuary counties. they looked at counties that both have sanctuary policies and those that do not. he found that on average, there are 35 and a half fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuaries counties. compared to nonsense were counties. they found that median household income $4000 higher in sanctuary counties than in non-sanctuary counties. for those who fear that this is driven by income gains of latinos at the expense of whites they found that among whites, median household income is actually $2000 higher is a great counties. they found that poverty is lower. reliance on public assistance is lower. labor force participation
including white labor force participation is higher in sanctuary counties. finally, unemployment is lower in sanctuary counties. the employment rate was actually 1.1 percent lower in sanctuary counties compared to non-sanctuary counties. so in conclusion, i know that we are looking forward to my fellow panelists going into more detail. i hope i have laid the groundwork for a constructive conversation and i look forward to your questions and comments. thank you. [applause] >> thank you michelle. you still my . i was going to ask, can you take it deeper and out into the world of detainers, constitutional issues around detainers and what some of the litigation challenges have been and sort of what is the landscape on the existing litigation. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be here today.
i also wanted to open this, agreeing with michelle that sanctuary policies really are in exercise. a basic local power to regulate the health and safety and buffers of the residence. some people may think that people have done is to stop mass deportation. but really it is the rarely motivation. -- ensuring that residents failsafe reporting crimes. basic government services. others are responded to the risk of collaboration with federal immigration can lead to profile and civil liberties violations. you're trying to remedy policing problems. recently, public schools and universities have voiced concern the more aggressive immigration enforcement will jeopardize student safety and interfere with their school's educational mission. another question always is whether they are lawful.
there is a long answer which i will get into and there is a short one. the answer is yes. they are possible. i've been practicing losses 1998. and i have been involved with sanctuary policies for over 10 years. i think during the first years i've seen the first years, doj tried to merge state police and local police with federal immigration enforcement. they did rely on this mechanism called immigration detainers. and at the time in 2006 or 2007 and detainers have been here for decades - when secured companies would launch no one really knew what they were. about 20,000 were issued after secure began.hundreds of thousands of detainers start pouring out of the department of homeland security. the landscape of immigration
enforcement changed radically. and that impacted communities across the country. we also, people somehow managed to get a detainer and somehow even after they had been granted and fail, after charges were dismissed for charges were dropped. we began hearing of extended detention through the immigration detainer. many people around the country, most people actually, there was so much confusion. they believe they were compulsory. this mechanism actually was instrumental to beginning what we think is some of the largest mass deportation policies we have had in government for many years. as michelle said the detainer is a request. it looks like this. it is a form. it is usually a form that i.c.e. has the says that they will intend with the purposes of putting them into removal proceedings.
a jurisdiction that complies with an i.c.e. detainer is an engaging in a warrantless arrest.have already conceded to that. and who is the jailer at that time? is the local jurisdiction. the local jurisdiction has the body. they are the jailer. that is what we will see later on. they will bear the front-end liability. so what are the problems with detainers? like i said before, i think there was a lot of confusion. everyone thought that they were regular warrants. of arrest. that they were criminal warrants. meaning that people just but that they were outstanding warrants everywhere and that noncitizens could be picked up for just outstanding warrants. people assume that the detainer met or concluded that someone was here unlawfully. i will tell you why. and there were many errors because we found out that detainers worth launched on people with many errors involved. i think fundamentally the
arrest that the detainer provides no oversight. -- there is no judge overseeing what evidence is supported. no article to be judged. the magistrate appeared to look and see what is the evidence supporting how the detainer is being issued. procedurally what is very frustrating for me when i was practicing immigration law is that i can never get a copy of it. i could never get a copy of the detainer to understand why was this person here in the first place? and you know throughout the years they propagated this confusion that detainers were mandatory. so communities and litigators at some point were first -- forced to act. we have the challenge of detainers which work, and administrative tool, really should not have the kind of power that dhs was saying they're going to have. and it was not easy. you did not do this overnight.
litigation did not happen overnight. there was a debate. we went to our stakeholders and the policies that emerged came after many many years of debate, reasonable debate. where we talked about what was important to the communities, what is good policing, how do we protect victims, how do we protect due process rights?it did not come about as an arbitrary discussion.
detainer is a new procedure that requires probable cause. in 2015 a morality check warrants this is a case in the first circuit over an island resident who is a us citizen and was held in a detainee for the second time after she had been released. in fact this was the second time , as i said again, that the detainer was being held on a warrantless arrest. first circuit court of appeals upheld the disc court's finding that detaining someone beyond the release date is an arrest under the fourth amendment and it required that i have probable cause to issue a detainer request. then courts have also held that detainers do not provide probable cause for arrest. in 14 miranda of the county
sheriff in oregon held him his miranda from a detainer after she could have been released on bail and transferred her to know what the federal district court in oregon real that the detainer does not provide sufficient proof, probable cause allowed miranda. [inaudible] be held unlawfully detained her and would have to pay damages. many courts have also found localities to be liable for the. this happened many of times. we found for permanent residence and we found in the damages of upwards of 100,000. in october, 2016, the northern district of illinois in the class action case called humana 's. [inaudible] invalidated nearly all detainees it found that they have limited authority to arrest without a warrant and that detainers on individual custody generally exceed that authority. in january, the northern district could be held liable
for unlawful detention. even if they claim to be probable cause that is not probable cause for a crime. the long and short is i didn't get a chance to go into the san francisco decision which i'd love to get into at some point but these policies are lawful and jurisdictions declined detainer request prolonged detention are not violating it. >> thank you. thank you very much. i'm sure will come back to have a chance to talk about the san francisco in santa clara litigation were done. we are going to move to betsy cavendish to talk to us about the perspective of dc and betsy, david c is a unique jurisdiction when were talking about cities. i know that a lot of the research that's been done and michelle talks about from the county perspective so feel free to take us into dc and how you
analyze dc in terms of its status at his jurisdiction and what is comparable to and what has dc done and what is it doing on the sanctuary front. >> thank you, karen. thank you for coming this morning. michelle set it up very well. she discussed sanctuary cities and generally what is a misleading term that can be. we can't offer and don't offer perfect immunity from all federal immigration law in a jurisdiction but dc is a city, it's a county and its estate. we have all those powers which are really not states and we want to be a state but we don't have a state but we act like one for many legal purposes. what i'll do in my seven minutes here is trying to go into what we think being a sanctuary city means and what it doesn't mean
and how we think we are very much in compliance with federal law as she was discussing. we want to expand the concept of sanctuary city beyond what it means for law enforcement and think about what it means for embracing all of our residents. we think of being a centricity as part of safer, stronger dc and part of our dc values. as michelle said, cities that are centricity's are safer and she showed data about that and we believe we are all safer and people feel secure in their persons. and that they can report crimes as she mentioned with respect to our metropolitan police, metropolitan police will not question persons about their residency or immigration status unless the member is investigating crimes involving criminal and harboring of immigrants or other crimes in which immigration status is an element.
in a brief that means we don't have a show me your papers a lot and if someone fenced off for other reasons, speeding ticket or whatever, no one is going to be questioning their immigration status. mpd won't make inquiries into the immigration status for the purpose of determining whether an individual has violated the civil immigration laws and for enforcing their loss. nor will mpd make any inquiry into any database solely for the purpose of inquiring about an individual immigration status. now, our npd spends a lot of time in the immigrant community. 70% of the residents in dc are foreign born and that isn't to say there's nowhere close to that number is missing papers. we want that whole population of people who are foreign born to feel comfortable and secure in their persons and that they won't be questioned about let me see your papers and are you here legally or illegally.
continuing on with mpd. mpd does send a big difference of refugees to the fbi. the fbi does share them with ice ice may issue an order to detain an arrestee. mpd only has custody of people for a short period of time, like about four hours. this would more than likely be received when the department of corrections or the us marshals actually have somebody. then we moved to the department of corrections. what does our century city policy mean and what doesn't it mean when someone's at the oc. well, first i want to say that much of the federal focus has been on very similar as serious criminals. in the district the federal bureau of prisons has all of our convicted felons. we don't have the most serious criminals here federal dop may
take some of the dc residents who have committed felonies and they may go right into ice proceedings. we don't have those people and we don't house those people in our jail. the oc district the way it cooperate and doesn't is that it notifies ice 48 hours before someone is scheduled to be released and then it's up to ice either they're there for the release or they're not there for the release. toc will not hold an inmate past his or her release date and if a judge orders someone released they are released immediately. we don't hold them to wait for ice to count them up. so we believe that this comports with the fourth amendment of the constitution and that it comports with a usd 1373.
our mayor's order says there's a lot of law that governs this and i brought a notebook just to show and tell they are mayors orders, policies from the department of corrections, there mpd partners policies that spell this out in more detail. mayor orders especially confirms clients with 1373. so, let's think, as i said, i want to spell this out much more broadly than law enforcement because as i said we are a sanctuary here in the district and that means that when we are interacting with the public to our various agencies we aren't questioning their immigration status to the extent that we don't have to. some federally funded programs require that we sift out here is legally and not for benefit sake but we have a special purpose driver's license so people who can get a special purpose
driver's license. of course, under everyone can go to public school but here they can also get lunches and practice and there is nowhere near segregated out at school. they can have special education programs and benefits, the kids right of freedom and metro regardless of immigration status and all the dc headstart, healthcare alliance and immigrant children program. we have a burial assistance program, special supplemental nutrition for women, infants and children, spd on immigration clinics, river smart home programs, hiv housing and supporting services, aids drugs and assistance, special milk programs, prenatal home visitation programs and summer food programs. those are examples of the programs and probably that's not even anywhere close to competence of what i wanted to
show that were stronger together permeates all of our agencies and we have special liaison units at mpd with immigrant communities and mpd officers come to events where immigrants are likely to be and try to reassure them that they should report crimes, should talk to them, should feel comfortable with mpd and the mayor signaled her commitment to immigrants and recognition that people are feeling very afraid now by putting $500,000 into an immigrant test of legal services grant program this year and monies on the street to some of our legal services provider to help immigrants with their file an application, converting green cards to sit still, these applications in she has money in the proposed budget for immigrant justice services as well. thank you back okay. thank you very much, betsy. chief manger can you take us
from the sort of executive angle focus on the discussion to your perspective from the police agency, the police and community policing angle. >> i am happy to. thank you all for being here. i am not an attorney so i am a diversity on the panel. [laughter] i have been a police officer for 40 years and actually wanted to take us back to a lot of these issues have really popped up recent times because we had secure communities starting six, seven years ago which was a bit of a moving target for local law enforcement has worked with dhs, went to the priority enforcement programs which, in my view and in the view of large urban police departments around the country, was exactly the right balance that we were looking for in terms of focusing on individuals with committed
crimes, serious crimes, and jurisdictions. now emily back to secure communities which again were trying to nail down exactly what that looks like. this really started for local police became a problem right after 911 when, then attorney general john ashcroft, decided to begin to put the civil administrative warrants for immigration violations into ncic ncic is a national database that if i stopped some guy in the middle of the night for anything , for a stop sign, and while i'm writing the ticket if it comes up i can run his name, date of birth to an ici and it will come back if there is a warrant out for his arrest in any part of the country. i will tell you, and all my experience as a cop, if you got a hit from ncic it was a 100% authority that you took that guy
back if you have probable cause to believe that is the individual who warrants and you took him into custody. when we started to get the civil immigration in ncic than it was a problem. i have a-uppercase-letter does this give me the authority to pick this individual up or not. of course, the advice i got from our county attorneys was no you don't have, you can notify ice the how this person you can't take them, you don't have the authority to take them into custody. now all of a sudden you have hits of ncic that aren't actionable in terms of what the cops can do. that was confusing for us. the chiefs association which is the largest police departments in this country took a position that we wanted those administrative warrants taken out of ncic because it was confusing. that started back in 2003, 2004
as more and more warrants got into the system. actually, all of the panelists, certainly michelle did a great job at laying out the landscape, so i don't want to repeat what she said but we do struggle -- i'll tell you from a police chief perspective that i've had elective officials worse standing on their soapbox saying we are a sanctuary jurisdiction and i have my boss county executive saying we are not a sanctuary jurisdiction and i have a municipality within my jurisdiction that say they have passed resolutions, ordinances that say they aren't a century jurisdiction yet they send the people that they arrest to our counties corrections and i have news for you, we are not a century jurisdiction. in fact, betsy talks about it. we have much of the same policy as the district.
we do notice i ice within our jail and they'll say if you have just met in your deal, will tell them we had to in our deal and we will let them know when joe will be released. it might be a little different than if the judge releases somebody it takes two to four hours to let them out of the jail and if will call ice and say joe is getting out. the judge releases. be here within a couple hours and you can have them. if they are not there then joe walks out. the impact on local police, it's been tough. it's been a moving target for us as things change on the federal level. we've been consistent in localities. we don't ask people about their immigration status. we don't care about their immigration status. the fact is that if someone is the victim of a crime, they deserve everything we can give them. i don't need to tell a roomful of attorneys that no matter what
your documentation status is if you are in the united states, the constitution applies to you. and all the protections apply to you. this notion that folks that are here undocumented give up their right to be a victim of a crime is just ridiculous and it's maddening for those of us who are trying to protect folks from being victims of crime. the president's executive orders brought a bit more urgency to defining what a fixed rate jurisdiction is because we now risk losing grant money if we are determined to be a sanctuary jurisdiction. i've had the opportunity to sit and speak one-on-one with secretary kelly from dhs, i spoke with the attorney general at least four times about immigration issues and i will tell you that oftentimes what the attorney general says, what secretary kelly says, what the
president takes, they are not on the same page. [laughter] we are trying to navigate through this. i will tell you that the attorney general and the secretary are trying to work with us and are listening to what our issues are. it remains to be seen where the dust settle in this. i hope it settles in a place where we can in fact work with our federal law enforcement partners which we do every day but not have to be in immigration please. that's what we want to end up. that's what is best for the safety of our jurisdiction. had a case and the notion about name and shame game and i know my colleagues at ice don't like it when i use that term but in fact, that's exactly what this is. for a couple of weeks they put out a report that was brought within inaccuracies and brought to their attention and they sent
suspended the report. i don't think it's come out since for at least about a month or so. we had -- in montgomery county we had a case where an individual broke into a car, stole don's and was caught with a stolen car with those stolen guns and 18 -year-old young man arrested and he, in fact, had a detainer placed because he was undocumented and he was released by the judge suspect that if another issue. how do you get someone who steals guns and get them released by a separate panel -- but he was able to get out. there was a detainer on file. it was a mistake. our corrections department made a mistake by releasing him and not notifying ice but we were taken by surprise that the judge would release him. ice from the multiple field office released a press release saying that montgomery county did not counter their detainer
and that the public safety of our community was impacted because the status person was allowed to walk out because montgomery county did not honor this detainer. i'll finish up by saying i had the opportunity to work with tom holman who is the acting director of ice. he is a career ice guy. he's a straight shooter. i'm a great deal of respect for him. i think he will try -- he understands that there is nothing of value that comes out of those kind of press releases. we've honored a number of detainers ice notified and i didn't show up in years past, dozens of times they didn't show up. should we be releasing these press releases that say we held some guy and they didn't show up so we had to release them? there is no value in that. were heading down the wrong path with his name in same strategy. i hope that goes way.
i'll finish up by saying that director holman has assured me, and i believe him, but they understand their sensitive location, hospitals, schools, churches, courthouses that they are not doing random seats. they will not target people at those locations. however, in courthouses, he said , if we had an individual that we are looking for and we have no other way of finding him and we know they will be in court, yes, we will be at the courthouse and wait for them. they're not just going and hanging out at courthouses. i'm not defending ice, this is what they're telling me. every case in my jurisdiction said yes we were waiting for him but we had a board. it was not just hey let's go hang out and see we can pick up. there are certainly been enough media coverage and i'll finish by saying this, i'm not here to defend ice, utterly from a long law-enforcement perspective
they've been divided more than any other agency in this country in the last ten years. a lot of people in this country don't like what they do and don't have any respect for their mission, no respect for the people who do that work and the fact that the president is elected to specifically went out and talk to ice ages and said i have your back, now, if there's been some backlash because they feel emboldened to finally shackles are often we can do our job. that dust will settle. i am convinced, ice is focusing on people who commit crimes. every day we read about, i locked up this many people had committed crimes. they also picked up this many edits. what tom holman said and this is what we have to understand is that he says yes, we are focused on picking up criminals but nobody's table.
the fact is that a reality. that's the prerogative of this president and administration. the same positive of the state for previous administration said we will pick up people who have committed crimes. they like that. the fact is that isis has a mission and we have to respect that mission and my hope is that we can work so that we can maintain the trust and confidence of the public. ice needs to maintain the trust and confidence of the public the same way we do. you do that by making sure the public understands what you are doing, you're transparent about it and that your balance and you find the right balance of protecting your community, getting dangerous people off the streets and focusing on your resources on the right people. i can't speak for ice and i won't speak for ice but we have tried to find the right balance. we been accused of being a
saints. city because we don't ask about immigration status but the fact is we do cooperate with ice same way we operate with the dea, fbi , ats and every other federal law enforcement agency. we can find the right balance and we can do what's right for the safety of our nation but but we have to understand there will be some folks that like what we do and some folks that don't. we have to navigate this with the most integrity ethics and the right priorities that we to maintain the trust and confidence of the people we serve. thanks thank you very much, chief. we are going to let ice speak directly for themselves and will turn to chat for the doj's perspective on the sanctuary concept and sanctuary issue. >> thank you for that commission on immigration. thank you for bringing us here to talk about this topic.
thank you, chief, for your remarks. i appreciate that. the attorney general is committed to working with our state and local police in order to make pretty safe. one of his most famous dissents, justice scalia said we have a government of laws, not of men. this people existed long before justice scalia put pen to paper. the foundational to our republis dissent discussed the horizontal the executive, legislative and judicial branches, this people of a government of laws and not of men, the people that the rule of law ranges in this country is highly relevant when we talk about the vertical allocation of power between the federal government and the states. at the heart of the debate over sanctuary is' agreement over whether an alien who is in this country illegally and has violated our criminal laws should be supported. i think the answer answers that
question. eight usc 12.7, any alien shall be removed if the alien was inadmissible at time of entry, present in the united states and in violation of immigration laws or has committed sumer numerous times. the last claim and the attorney general plainly intends to do what he can to enforce state doe state disagrees with the law and disagrees with the attorney general's important priorities perspective first, let me start with what a state can not do. a jurisdiction cannot set its own immigration priorities. according to benjamin johnson, the executive director of the american immigration council, the federal government and only the federal government has the power and authority to set the nation immigration policies. mr. johnson when he gave that quote in reference to the arizona case clearly understood
that the federal government and not state local jurisdictions that are charged with the establishment of uniform rule of naturalization. mr. johnson also clearly understood that the federal government, not state and local governments, was charged with controlling and conducting former relations he stated that the department of justice must quote seek to define and protect the federal government's constitutional authority to manage immigration. well, mr. johnson, on that point we do agree. yet jurisdiction after jurisdiction to determine based on its own priorities have at night ice priorities, not the department parties when it is going to hand over an alien to be deported. some jurisdictions hand over criminal aliens that are in the country regardless of their offense and others only hand them over a jurisdiction interview's public safety. the possible result of this à la carte approach to immigration enforcement is a patchwork of conflicting mandates which
predictably undermines the federal government to enforce this nation's immigration laws. this threat is not hypothetical. for example, in february under policy set by new york city mayor bill diblasio, new york city released eight known ms 13 gang member from rikers despite the fact that ice had launched a detainer against him because he was not in new york city's field and in the mayor's view, he would not pose a threat to public safety. as we know, in april ms 13 brutally murdered for young men a lot on long island. just a couple days ago i got a letter from to take all necessary action to ensure that illegal immigrants convicted of certain crimes are immediately designated for deportation. this is from the legislators of the county in long island. here new york city's actions are directly impacting their neighbors in long island and in cording to the bill diblasio there is nothing the federal government can do about it.
he is wrong. there is reason why the constitution takes the choice out of immigration out of state and local and put the in the hands of the local government. the immigration council has spot on. the federal government must assert its authority to establish an uniform immigration policy that it can be held accountable for and the current environment it is unclear who is responsible for sending immigration enforcement priorities and who is responsible for their success or failure. there are a couple points that some of my panel members raised and i would like to respond to. first, again, i would like to echo what the chief said. the department of justice and the attorney general is committed to working with our state and local authorities to adopt a common sense approach to solving the immigration problems in this country. contrary to what might be said or alleged the attorney general
has never once suggested that a part the police department should detain or arrest victims that the police department should detain or arrest those who report crimes. the department of justice agrees wholeheartedly with the chief that the constitution applies to all of those in this country. the question is what does the constitution require and what does it permit. it permits the department of justice and ice to identify particular targets for immigration enforcement priorities. in this case, those are people who are in the country here illegally and have committed crimes. the way we communicate that and i'll let tracy go into that more is through issuing a detainer request. a detainer request is two things . it's not yet been talked about the two very important things. first, a detainer after jurisdiction to notify ice ahead
of time with enough advance notice that ice can get there in order to pick someone up. i was very glad to hear that that is a practice that dc, in fact, does and i'm a practice of chief in the county as well. that is crucial and that is important. the second thing that ice detainer does is act in circumstances where ice cannot get there within enough time to pick someone up immediately after their reported to hold someone for 48 hours. if all jurisdictions adopted the same policy sdc in the county of montgomery, then we be in a much better place. if all jurisdictions that we will notify you ahead of time, 48 hours at a time, seek because person up but will hold them for a minute longer than is required , we would all be in a better place. sadly, that is not the policy of all counties.
a lot of counties including cook county, including certain counties in california, including washington and oregon state counties that don't notify us at all. the second thing i want to point out is the legal authority for detainers. again, tracy will talk more about this. one thing i want to point out is right here it says eight usc 1226 on a warrant issued by the attorney general and alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the united states. there's been a lot of question about when the united states has legal authority to detain a criminal alien. the answer is within the ministry of war and they are allowed to detain somebody pending that decision. one of my panel members mentioned moreno. marino was the case in the northern district of illinois in fact held that warrantless arrest was improper in that instance. it had nothing to do with the rest based on an ministry of boring. that's clear because again, eight usc 1226 clearly says on a
warrant issued by the attorney general and an alien may be arrested and detained. ice has a new policy which i mentioned tracy will get into but all of its detainers are now accompanied by administrative words. that remedies any potential problem and that the squarely within eight usc 12.6. thank you. >> okay. thank you. tracy, will turn to you now. >> thank you, karen. like to thank the section on civil rights for giving me the opportunity to speak your today, as well as the press club posting this and my distinguished panel members and thank you, karen for moderating this very important topic. let me first say that since its creation in the aftermath of the 911 terrorist attacks the mission of the department of homeland security has been to
prevent terrorism and to ensure the safety and security of americans in the homeland. now, as a component of the department ice, us immigration and customs enforcement, has a similarly critical mission. that is to promote homeland security and public safety to the criminal and civil enforcement of our immigration, customs and trade laws. now, sanctuary cities are generally those jurisdictions that in some way prohibit through official action or practice their law enforcement officers from operating with ice and the enforcement of the immigration office. i would submit to you that rather than promoting public safety these policies and practices in fact endanger the public.
i can give you a very real example. in the past the former immigration national services which capacitor to ice, had very good working relationships with state and local law enforcement agencies in the context we would cooperate and collaborate with regard to the sharing of information regarding individuals that would be removable aliens from the united states. that is to say if there's some indication that an alien was removable whether criminal basis or simply removable on another basis, we would share information with the law enforcement agencies. what we would have his agencies would allow ice and the ins to enter the facility and interviewed the individuals to determine if they were removable aliens and they would also communicate, pick up the phone, call ice when they had some reason to believe there was someone in their custody that
has been arrested for a state, criminal offense and they would let us know. we may have someone in our custody who may be removed and you may interview them and come to your jail and interview them at your leisure but keep in mind , these are individuals that the state and local officials had arrested for state and local crimes. from murder, rape, child exploitation, down to driving while intoxicated and down to other offenses assaults and so forth. across the spectrum. ice and ins in the earlier days would have an opportunity to engage, to discuss, to share information about the individual and we would have some indication of the individuals may be removable from the united states under the immigration and nationality act. so, fast-forward to today. what we have are the rise of sanctuary jurisdictions that will prohibit ice from entering
their jails, they will prohibit their officers and agents from communicating with ice about the presence of individuals who may be subject to removal from the united states. again, these are significant high risk criminal aliens. what we have here is that ice is no longer welcome in these tales so they can no longer expect the rest of these criminal aliens who are public safety threats in the safety and security of public facilities like jails or county detentions or state penitentiaries. the sheriffs, chiefs of police, wardens of these facilities that we use to interact with on a very collegial basis they essentially shut off our access. what does that mean for ice? what it means is that ice is going to enforce the immigration laws. were not going away.
that's our mission. to enforce the immigration laws, both civil and criminal to promote and protect public safety. that forces the ice agency and officers out onto the streets to arrest these individuals in target enforcement actions. let me be clear, ice as the chief pointed out, ice does not conduct raids, ice does not conduct suites or any other instrument form of arrest practices. these individuals are targeted because we have some indication that they have been in state and local facilities for a criminal violation or rest. however, once they are released these agencies and jurisdictions don't notify us we have to target them individually. our agents and officers undertake an investigation, we review the file and we target these individuals which means we have to go out into the neighborhoods, we have to go to
their homes, potentially to their businesses or other public areas to affect the arrest as opposed to the safety and security of a jail facility which is certainly the most appropriate place when these individuals have already been screened, they cannot have an access to a weapon, they can't flee. it's an orderly transfer of custody. again, the teeth points out, rightly so, that we are going to conduct our mission it just means that we will be out in the neighborhood where people don't want us to be in the neighborhoods targeting individuals at their homes, again, their businesses and in public areas so we would prefer this other transfer of custody. as the chief pointed out, we are targeting criminal aliens. that is our focus. as he indicated also, the director of ice has indicated that no aliens are off the table because under the immigration
and nationality act of those who are simply here unlawfully are subject to removal from the ics. irrespective of whether they had no history. that means that if an ice agent or officer or team goes out and identifies individuals at their home and they encounter them or they encounter them in a public place, if they also encounter those who are not criminals but they are there with them and also subject to removal under the immigration and nationality act, they will also be apprehended because they are here unlawfully for reasons separate and apart from criminality. they are here unlawfully. that's the president's directive under the executive order that we will take enforcement action against all removable aliens. the point is if you don't want those who are not criminals to be arrested, the idea is don't make us go to the homes or public places or other agent where we have to affect these arrests do to carry out our mission.
let's have it in a safe and secure jail environment where we can transfer custody for the officer safety, for the alien safety and for public safety. we would encourage greater cooperation and i think the chief for his cooperation with ice and those other jurisdictions that want to cooperate with ice, we simply want to carry out the mission. it's no different, as you point out, then working with da, fbi or other federal law enforcement agencies. we have a mission in the mission is for public safety. we can all agree that public safety is a critical aspect here and we simply want to affect these arrests and seek removal of these aliens who are removable under the nationality act in a safe environment so the public is protected and not exposed to unnecessary risk. i'll be happy to take questions. you very much. thank you, tracy. michael, i have the pleasure with this long list of questions growing over here to print it to
you. i see how you're going to respond to the comments from the whole table that proceeded you back yeah, we've covered both sides of the spectrum. >> my role here and i want to thank the aba for inviting me to be a part of the commission and also to have a forum like this where we can exchange the ideas rather than talking in an echo chamber. i'd also like to thank the oj and ice for participating. my background, i was in tracy's seat in the bush administration, frankly, when secure communities and information sharing really was developed. to some extent it made sense. post 911 when there was a real concern, security concern and was here and we have a handle on our immigration enforcement. that was a priority. something that we are charged with. how would we more effectively
enforce the immigration laws that have always been on books. the idea of having technology work together and be able to share information from the states and local police departments, fbi and us which was now capturing all sorts of information on individuals who were in the country and immigrant status. this was a good idea that made sense. to some extent it created something that we really hadn't anticipated. one of the panelists mentioned the numbers and how we were identifying so many more individuals who were in state, local jails automatically as having -- maybe they were here unlawfully, they may have been removed previously and now we have access and we had that information. we really struggled and worked with state locals very closely to come up with now what will we do with that. how would we rationally
implement that process. frankly, dc and montgomery county during those years were great friends working with how can we do that. now one of the concerns and i think this is what tracy and chad were mentioning with the whole sanctuary talk is the pendulum going to go so far the other way that state and locals are going to say were going to shut off any information sharing whatsoever. i recall when i was in that ice position, that was a huge concern. are we, criminal, grain member, are they going to be released and we won't know about it? if that real information sharing on the flip side there are real issues about what our authority as state and local. can we hold this person beyond the time that were going to release them? those are real issues. that's where coordination, communication between state and local used to be increased rather than drawn lines.
that's is not the solution. from my private practice, some of the frustrations that i've seen frankly with the system, now that we are identifying individuals more efficiently, now that were placing more people into this immigration process, that's not working. i have clients that are sitting there and they're not getting a court date for years and years and years. some of these folks are detained by ice, not for years and years and years we are getting quicker court dates on that but even in the non- detained docket where they have to go on and live their life. there really are sympathetic stories out there. these folks have families, they are us citizens, they need their day in court. on both sides everybody recognizes that these folks have
to be provided with a timely hearing where a judge can decide if their release or do they need to be removed. ice needs to be able to make a decision prioritizing those folks in light of the resources. if the system is so broken that were not getting court dates for individual calendars are not being set for four years from a master calendar, there's something wrong. were talking about the front end of the system. our individuals who are being identified by state and local will be turned over and get the process started. we have to remember there's a long process and we need to make sure that also working. that's all the comment i wanted to make. the round table comments are the interesting part. >> thank you, michael. i will start on your left point right there about the immigration court backlogs. often the years are delayed even for a master calendar hearing.
even if we think about in the detained context the lengthy amount it takes to america. what is your solution for that not in an effort context but when were talking about the issue of detainers communications with federal authorities and more people coming into the system. i imagine that part of your points is that immigration court system is getting clogged with cases where some may be serious criminal offenders and some may not but at the end of the day, people across a variety of contexts are having a delay in having their case heard. whether it's a criminal deportation, you know, criminal conviction type deportation or an asylum seeker, whatever, more cases coming in me the delay in getting to your ultimate hearing . how does the question of detainers and corporation play into that from your point of
view? >> the sooner that ice can know about an individual, know when they will be released and be able to decide, is this priority , those priorities, as the chief said those priorities change. it's broader now than it was in the past several years. that's a rational basis for that there still has to be -- i think would be helpful if attorneys got involved in this case earlier, if everybody can make a decision if there relief available, is there some way that we could speed this process along, can we vet to some of these issues. so that we can more efficiently resolve whether this person can be granted relief and not continue the case if for whatever reason there is not a valid case there or it meets the discretionary requirements. or if they will be removed is there a way to move in that case along.
it won't happen without research research makes a difference and i've seen this is anecdotal but we know that there's been several new immigration judges that have been placed in various locations and i've heard anecdotally, at least, in miami, were starting to see individual cases been scheduled much quicker than they were in the past three years ago. that's a good thing. sometimes you look at the numbers and think there's ever going to be an answer that were so in the hall that boy, let's get 300 more judges we won't be able to move forward. we won't be able to plod through this. but we have seen that even a smaller number of ids being dedicated in select locations can have a huge impact. >> okay. that's going to put me to you, tracy and maybe to chat. on the backlog question and the
call for attorney early priorities, who do we want to remove, at least, my understanding of the current executive orders and some of what you mentioned in your marks is that everybody is a priority if they come to the attention of ice, if they fall within the net whether a targeted or action or by accident in the context of apprehending someone else. how do you respond to that suggestion that there has to be prioritization, resources have to come into play when were talking about all the people who may be subject to detainers or about whom ice may receive notification? >> thank you, karen. essentially, the president's executive orders are clear that those who are subject to removal from the united states are, as we said earlier, still on the table.
the point i'm making is that we are no longer going to categorically take out of the enforcement realm classes of aliens that meet certain categories and publish those categories. what we are saying is that under the immigration and nationality act aliens who are here unlawfully, unlawfully present under section 212 of the ina, and those who come here and overstayed or otherwise subject to deportation generally under section 237 of the act are now subject to removal. we will internally determine our priorities and utilize our resources in the best way that we can. first, as i indicated earlier, one of the clearest missions is public safety. so, we are obviously going to target criminal aliens first.
in addition to those who would threaten national security, they may or may not be criminals, they may be intelligence on those individuals but nevertheless, we will target those who are threat to national security and those were the to the public safety. within those parameters, we will go after those, clearly, one of the most egregious criminal offenses. they are the ones that are more easily identified to the process when the chiefs police officers apprehended somebody on a felony charge, there is a reason why we have grades of criminal offenses we have felony and misdemeanor spirit naturally, we look at those of the most significant threat to public safety and will target those individuals, mostly the balance, those were also commit assault, those are general misdemeanor but they are nevertheless offenses against a person.
these are situations where what we want to do is prioritize our resources and our assets to target those individuals that we can make the most, the greatest impact on public safety as poorly as possible. does that mean we are going to not target those who have driven without a license? or those who had a dui arrest #-number-sign know, we will. if we encounter those individuals, we will take action against them because they are subject to removal from the united states. to michael's point, yes, there is america massive backlog. we have to be mindful of that backlog. do we want to play somebody relatively low priority alien in proceedings that will extend for many years that may or may not result in a removal or if they have some removal criminal --
under section 101 of the act but also certain egregious offenders we are going to target those that have the greatest impact, that will make americans safer and that aligned with the idea that again, we are not instantly rounding people up and taking documentation. if we encounter them and it typically in the context of a criminal or civil enforcement action, that's we will apprehend them and move forward with their removal. so, we do prioritize but we do have this week we aren't going to tell the american public, here's a schedule of offenses and if you fall within them we will target you. we won't do that. again, there may be circumstances that warrant interest of an individual seeking removal of them they don't quite fit and fall within all parameters. >> one to follow up on that. i understand what you're talking
about targeting for enforcement that that means actually arrest in insurance of an npa contract or are you also talking about pursuing the case in removal proceedings after that case? >> yes, well, when we arrest, make a civil arrest, our purpose is to seek the aliens removable from the united states. keep in mind and arrest of an alien who has been previously removed may lend itself to criminal prosecution for illegal reentry and their other basis for criminal prosecution. generally speaking, we are enforcing the civil immigration laws, yes, we are targeting the individuals for removal from the united states, either through the -- this will result issuance will appear or some other charging document that will initiate the removal proceedings sometimes there are administrative under section 238
of the act there's an administrative removal proceedings that do not require a proceeding for immigration judge. whatever statutory authorities we have, we will take full all of our utilize all of our authorities to initiate removal proceedings and remove whatever is available. >> could i make a point. yes, chad. sure. >> we realize the backlog is a problem. we realize it's a real problem. everybody deserves their day in court. what are we doing we are streamlining immigration judge hiring process. previously it took one year to fill one position. we were trying to turn that amount of time. we have open slots and we need to get people in there. replacing new judges in high priority areas. again trying to hire new judges. for conducting removal proceedings in jail. this is key because at our
facilities for an illegal immigrant is in the facility we can actually conduct a removal bother serving their time as soon as their time is done that person can be removed from the country. we would love to work with state and locals and do something in potential delays. if there serving their time and space to them getting out having to go through ice detention center will initial removable proceedings, it will allow us to come in and bring our immigration judges and and conduct a hearing while in the jail that would help streamline the process. also doing videoconferencing here. we are trying to get to a place we can use judges all over the country to hear cases, and particularly high priority areas maybe we can get a judge from michigan to go to the southern border we can put up a camera in the southern borders of the immigration judge in michigan can hear all the case. we are actively trying to reduce the backlog for the purpose that michael mentioned to get people
their day in court. >> chad, while you have the floor. i want to ask a couple of definitional questions. when you say and i thank you mentioned right now about illegal aliens having their hearings while they're in proceedings. what do you mean when you say that? do you mean people who have criminal convictions or undocumented people because i think you're talking to people who haven't had removable proceedings yet, i'm trying to understand the reference to illegal alien. >> thank you for asking that. whenever were conducting these removable proceedings they are respected under us 37 or some other provision under the immigration laws. some of these are people who have committed other criminal offenses in the united states and that's why they're in custody. those people are a priority for the administration. that's what i meant. >> okay. thanks.
one other question similarly when you are talking about the detainers, sorry, i don't have the exact language but it was something about criminal aliens, detainers in the context of criminal aliens. when you were discussing it some of it was pre- adjudication. people who may have come into the system on a criminal charge and that's when you are saying criminal aliens did you mean to say people who were charged with crimes?
>> >> engaging with them through the jails or through the prisons if they are a public safety threat we will take action notwithstanding the lack of a criminal conviction. for example, there are statistics that suggest that those who drink and drive who have engaged in that type of conduct are arrested with that type of safety threat so we look at those
alien setter subject to removal and the public safety threat there are many aliens who have convictions but nevertheless under the immigration and nationality act and with the threat at that time so with those aliens ever hear of the unlawful status to be arrested while driving while intoxicated. we do not seek enforcement action because that would require that those who are here unlawfully have no status and we determined there are a public safety threat.
>> i will jump on one thing they may have some relief. and then to move through the system and then talk with the i.c.e. attorney monica case by case basis. and get to would judge quickly than that person does not stay in limbo. than the can say under the current law that person cannot reside here legally so the back and is now working in this person is really just walking around.
understanding out there that there would not be a continuance. and the people that could be a victim of crime. they could not actually pursue emigration because the department of justice has changed their position. so on one end to streamline the at the same time that it is a tough pill to swallow for decades to ensure that family stayed together that is one comment that i have been the other is a is worrisome to me that is up
for term to use but i think that is not an issue of what but rhetoric because that question will really impact the right people but most immigration relief is discretionary. often in the hands of the trial attorney to decide if they are going to join in. so they are harsh laws that frankly allow 400,000 people so do you want to expand
4,000 per year even higher? were set to protect the rights of the people? i am not sure where we're falling. spinning disk question follows virginia deity arrested or charged with the crime and as a threat to public safety and i am wondering to incentivize certain police who want to play a larger role to arrest people that look or sound like immigrants to charge them with a crime knowing even if there is no conviction to be initiating
deportation against that person publicly. >>. >> false arrest is a false arrest. no matter what your motivation is. there are large segments of our community when they are motivated by a race and immigration status with the criminal justice system that will keep that from progressing through the criminal justice system.
but that happens occasionally? with the same notion that much of the american public has been convinced the epidemic of police violence in this country there is less use of force today and use less force today because you only need a few knucklehead police to convince folks it is a big problem. it is not an issue that i believe that the police were incentivized the mib undocumented and then to
stay busy enough to keep the public safe and not think that is as big of a concern. >> did not mean to speak for michelle but to take your point that the criminal justice system ben day have the states removal proceedings but not in your jurisdiction and then to be rigorously trained to follow those proper laws of jurisdictions and not from that criminal perspective that people are more through those proceedings is that we
try to get at?. >>. >> let me first respond to the comment of the numbers game of the deportation this is all about public safety with identifying those public threats to the united states if this seems harsh is only because those laws were enacted as part does illegal immigration reform these laws have been on the books so they plainly said that aliens present in the united states and nothing more is necessary we don't
do sweeps or raids. it does not have to be an arrest for the conviction but the fact someone is here and we are made aware of it through the operation then congress clearly stated that was the case and also built in these mechanisms of relief to adjustment of status and adjustment of removal. solyndra the actor presence is sufficient. we don't have the resources but congress builds that relief valve by allowing the adjustment to these individuals who are arrested
by seeking their approval so in the grip emigration context the windshield and is eligible for relief we shift the role then mitigate if they are eligible. so under certain circumstances to have that character qualifications you can say but congress did not put into the law that there is no other basis for removal but you can just stay here or criminal basis for removal is required so here's your relief valve if you qualify then you are eligible. we don't need to engage in second-guessing. we simply enforce the law that has been on the books 20 years going back to where the enforcement was over the
last eight years we're simply getting back to the enforcement aspect and he nailed the right of the head there is no indication the question -- enforcement of immigration law would have immigration profiling any more than any other fat was the case then with violent crime or any other manner of criminal enforcement of federal agency then why is i use for those that cooperate those chief police officers would be any more disposed to racial profiling than any other laws? rigo many of the aliens in federal custody are doing hard time for drug trafficking. and other serious offenses the you would think the d.a. would be more targeted for
the individuals they and others but that is clearly not the case any that's the better anymore predisposed they have the internal review process they can be prosecuted i don't know if there is ongoing investigations but to be made aware of these situations because these individuals have the ability to go through the process of litigation. so there will be some bad apples but that doesn't show going on with the immigration laws. >> i want to go back with a couple more questions so i want to ask for your respective jurisdictions and
from your awareness of the others city county state level jurisdictions, how do local entities decide about century city policies that all? is that legislative? litigation? how do entities grapple with and decide?. >> i cannot speak for those cities across the country but the district of columbia has mayor's orders and legislation regarding century cities in there is a communicated function that is ongoing from the mayor had she and other officials act placing you could see from the discussion that those jurisdictions around the country interpret differently what it means to
be a sanctuary city. a and i hope the department of justice and homeland security will not cut off grants to cities and are important for community policing or domestic violence or homeland security when they take a very different approach of case by case to know what makes their city safer. and the crime rates have been trending downward and they are safer when people feel they have access to government services and when they feel they can report the crimes to the police. but all of you thought i city were resting victims of
crime that people are very afraid that interactions with the police to turn into immigration proceedings so they avoid civil woman is beaten and reports that the perpetrator may say she hit me first arrest both of us then she gets into the system and is full verbal. we think we're safer and stronger together with the legal architecture of the department orders along with legislation it is very nuanced and complicated. >> you mentioned in montgomery county that those that don't even agree if it is a century jurisdiction
and so can you say briefly who decides over who should agree?. >> there is only relatively few jurisdictions run the country where the mayor says we are a century jurisdiction that the city council will pass a resolution. that gets a lot of attention. but the vast majority of jurisdictions with guides their policy of legal decisions. the fact that we will all hold someone beyond the time to be released is not a political decision. it is the legal guidance we have got from the fourth circuit in from our own attorneys when the attorney says you should not hold this person and we are liable if you do, i have to follow the a vice it is a legal decision not a
political decision. >> 1.12 comeback earlier to the california egg decision about the restriction and the constitutionality can you take just a minute what happens there that we will go to our audience questions >> through the executive order issued by the trump administration and the attorney general is essentially a threat was made withholding of federal funds from cities a century cities the argument is that they were violating a federal statute that addresses how they communicate with vice. so first of all, nearly all
of them i think don't violate the statutes and second if you did try to take away federal funding then it would violate the constitution because the supreme court has repeatedly ruled out information should be shared and through sebelius with the ac a decision the federal government cannot commandeer state and local officials sold last month the u.s. district court in san francisco passed a temporary injunction on century city's and it concluded it
constitutes unconstitutional commandeering and then to enforce federal law and under what i have just mentioned so is that decision that at a hearing to explain that is an example but the president's use of the bully pulpit even to have no legal effect highlights the president's focus. what the president is entitled to highlight those priorities that executive order unthink is the reason why this judge felt compelled to respond with the imminent threat of that executive order to be coerced with the clawback of
the money. >> anticipate the government will want to address that point so i did not say to the audience but i did say i would come back for a closing remark so hold on to that point did you want to address the point when they come back to you. so for the audience we have questions and answers. please identify yourself the i mean and organization please a true question no speeches or comments. >> i with the state and legal center am wondering if there are any that say any
administrative warrants by somebody who works for i.c.e. meets the requirements of the fourth amendment?. >> i think this issue really has not been decided and to have the validity of those could be supplementing and they have not yet decided if they meet pat -- the requirement. >> i don't think there is necessarily any case law on the point the state of texas is required immigration and detainers from travis county to oppose that policy in the bill raises the fourth
amendment argument with the judgment it is a detainer that is compatible with the fourth amendment battle think we have an answer on that yet but supreme court's 1976 talks about a criminal arrest without a warrant on the basis there are some principles but when you have probable cause we always have a practice if they have committed a crime so if we're dealing with the crime that is among the population that doesn't change that legal analysis. so there is nothing right to on point. >> next question.
>> i am from people power d.c. we have been asking the department of corrections to review and make alterations of the recent directive the way immigrant inmates are handled in the facility. the people of those facilities generally are of in that facility up to one year so my question is we're pressing for the requirement to have a court order to accompany the request for information when in inmate can be released specifically sentencing and our
understanding is requesting a court order to move no way violate section 1373. >> those are two separate trade so there is not a violation 1373 is the magistrate position maybe they could consider those miranda considerations with interviews of inmates in detention or even a federal prosecution. >> so that is just a prerequisite. >> how many people have questions so i can decide how to allocate the time?.
>> will try to be concise so we can take as many as possible. >> pending legislation in congress with a century cities they're trying to extend liability protection if you comply makes law enforcement officers or federal agents isn't that commandeering? is that subject to the tenth amendment?. >> with the common during point that came up in the united states when the federal government requires the state to do something in that case with the brady handgun prevention act the required state you do a background check the with
dolby conditioned requiring the state to do something with attaching federal grants in a specific instance we'll give you highway fund to raise your drinking age to 21 there was no commandeering problem if they have a choice to comply or not there may be that coercive problem if there's too much money attached by 10 percent of their annual fund then that could be though coercive misspent not commandeering because the state has a choice to take the money or not but is it so much that the state has no choice but to racked but this -- but enough for they could make be informed decision?.
>> there are many provisions in the bill that try a to have civil immigration enforcement and yes i do think it would raise serious constitutional problems. >> panelist get your 302nd closing comment ready. >> i want to ask those the b.c. being arrested around courthouses have pending cases in they may be undocumented but once they are held by i.c.e. in detention there are not brought back into criminal court said the cases never resolve. the prosecutor wants to dismiss them the state cannot prosecute so of course, they're unable to resolve the cases the victims don't have closure
and it prevents those that were taken into custody because of their eligible for some relief they are likely to be denied because of their deported they cannot return because the of a pending criminal case so that impact states i guess i am looking for a? response that they feel that this is interfering with their prosecution. >> i could not disagree more if the local i.c.e. officials are aware there is a pending matter if they work closely with the d.a. office and law-enforcement officers to make sure if it is a pending matter they put that back over to state
custody. for those proceedings if we have an opportunity. we don't allow the victim's to have closure so if we can do that at all possible so then they can complete those pending criminal matters or they have no interest so that they don't stand trial i can assure you i am well aware of these situations where we have worked cooperatively with the d.a. office to make sure they stick around for their trial there may be a time when the state does not want to pursue the charges. a lot of times i can tell you state and local wash their hands of it so we
don't have to pursue this and we will save some money. but it is important that could be the only basis for remove ability so i would just tell you maya understanding is they don't know the situation and you talk about but that is maya understanding. >> we have to vacate / alaska everybody a 30 minute closing thought but the panelists did not have to rush out but just to step outside if you have questions if you would like to speak with them if they are available to continue that conversation outside.
it literally has to be 32nd. >> with the trip down memory lane they're brought back thoughts of the early 2000 would defer started to work on these issues a river getting state and local police and coming out of that period resaw a lot of studies indicating hispanics were being arrested for minor traffic violations of much higher rates and other reports of people being arrested to get them into bed jail. even reports the people who died because they did not want to call an ambulance i hope we can learn from the lessons of the past from this new conversation.
>> i think it is an important critical time it is a challenging time to figure out who we are as a country and address issues of immigration and how we address our due process protection better all on the line right now. it is too easy to say the rhetoric does not matter or impact those decisions but many of us doing this work have seen a disturbing rhetoric in the impact on our communities.
so we need to come back and decide for the police power should go and that they have made it good decisions on sanctuary cities for those the reside within them and by executive orders with federal funding or creating additional penalties frankly that is not a good way to go for our country to heal those decisions in the united states. >> is say very scary time and lawyers play an important role in it comes to immigration we don't have a right to counsel in immigration proceedings but
community groups can provide some security to immigrants who live in our midst. many people who are here that our illegal but they may have the active claim to stay if they could provide more security many people who are green card holders so with the help of counsel you can bring that so if they are arrested or find themselves in this system they will not find themselves supported. >> public safety is based on trust and confidence for local police departments it is no different than the federal law enforcement agency i believe we can find the right balance river betty's interest is served by not being the immigration police or with no pressure
to engage in immigration enforcement and that is the wrong direction to go however i believe we can find the right balance between local and federal law enforcement agencies i think we can support each other in our mission not telling them how to do their job but to the understand to have the trust and confidence of the people they serve their focus is on criminals for those that are a danger to public safety there would have to support the public that they serve if they pick up those who are here because they come from magog awful situation and make a life for themselves and not broken was bought other bin
entering the country then i think you start to erode the trust and confidence of the people we serve because while you use the resources on that individual there plenty that i deal with like the game players with armed robberies are those committing crimes but i will work with my federal colleagues to get them out of our community to make the community safer we have to focus our priorities in a way to get that trust and confidence. >> there is at one point i cannot agree more that the rhetoric matters so the rhetoric suggested you are a victim of a crime or domestic violence and go to police or the attorney general gets you deported that is not true for cry
call that rhetoric has says local police or i.c.e. ages by enforcing immigration laws somehow are engaged in a pretext of racial profiling. that is not helpful we can find common ground if you are in the country illegally you have no right to be here in situations of your charge of a crime the federal government will use its resources to ensure that threat to public safety is no longer present the attorney general is committed to working with state and local police hearing concerns working with everybody to make the nation safer. >> thank you for allowing me to be here today but if i could i would dispel the myth judicial warrants are required for a that is never been the case that the rest
of the public place is probable cause so the extent to have the administrative board that is set forth to establish probable cause so they are no less of a warrant because they're not issued by a judicial officer because i am not aware of a provision that allows a magistrate judge to issue a warrant in a civil immigration for criminal matters so congress set up this system to set forth the individuals of the procedures and now they clearly have probable cause to establish the basis those are just as valid under the constitution as with any
other use pursuant to the arrest of a civil matter. so we are affecting arrest based on the statutory framework with these enforcement actions so we will go that it is consistent and though less lawful. >> just to be very? what michelle said how of lots of the laws and policies come into place i will say i a agree that no one wants to target individuals with their
nationality but i also agree that as we ramp up enforcement we have to be mindful of those issues that with those procedures we have somebody looking at that to make sure we're not doing things with consequences so it does protect the government and the individuals that are targeted. >> we had a written request for one more question. can we take that?. >> you said obviously you all made a career out of immigration enforcement as a federal task.
so with blas the likud led the judiciary committee would allow them to make up their own immigration laws so if we have a tangle that system it could make it tougher for all of you here so what behind the scenes work are you doing to major the system that is already bad to make it worse?. >> i am not familiar with that specific bill i have not personally been involved with that but i will say that everything that we do we want to make consistent with a loss of the supreme court and the constitution
recognizes having a patchwork of contradictory immigration regulation is not helpful or will create the clarity that we need so i cannot comment on that specifically but again i would reiterate what the council says on arizona that in the current environment is not clear who is responsible for setting priorities and who was responsible for the success or failure we want to change that and make it clear the department of justice in dhs is responsible where states and local jurisdictions that have a patchwork of conflicting mandates are not helpful. >> we will end on that note and first of all, day everyone for your patience with us running over time
and at the press club to give us the room and the commission on immigration and on civil rights and social justice. thinks to both of those entities for cosponsoring this program. it is obvious how complicated the issues are and how difficult it is to resolve them with the satisfaction of both sides said the issue but one thing we can all agree is jihadist teller group of people presenting today. [applause] the next to the audience and we will move outside for a few moments. [inaudible conversations]